I'm working on a presentation on the Trinity and am including images of the Trinity from all of Church history. I, of course, am including the classic Ethiopian icon of the Trinity and came across this image - http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/58s3aUNfsoxwICI7wBVt4g - here there are "tags" beside each of the Persons, which I'm guessing designates the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But I can't tell which is which (my ge'ez is rusty!). So I thought to come and ask you wise souls if you can give me a touch of help and identify the "tags" for me, I would appreciate it very much!

I might be wrong, but the two entities over the figures might indicate that the Person on the right is the Holy Spirit (there's a dove over it!) and the one on the left might be the Son (also named in Isaiah "the Angel of the Great Council" as president among the angels). I don't speek ge'ez, though. Hope this could help.

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

"there's a dove over Him" is of course better, huh? May God forgive me for my stupid mistake.

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

The "dove" motif has nothing to do with the figure of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is an eagle. The other three figures in the corners are of an ox, a lion, and an angel. These four symbols come from the Book of Revelation, and represent the four Evangelists.

Thanks, yes, that was I was asking. Sorry if it was unclear. I am guessing that the letters indicate Ab, Weld, Menfes'qiduse, but I want to make sure and it would be interesting to know which Person in which. If I was making this icon, for example, it would be understanding that the Father would be in the middle (taking from the Irenaeus' statement that the Son and Spirit are the "hands" of the Father). But I would be interested to know if this is how this icon is understood as well.

As this is the only Ethiopian trinity I have seen which includes the tags, I'm not sure if the idea that certain figures indicate certain Persons is an innovation. There is obviously a tendency to view this icon as the figures of the Persons being interchangeable.

Thanks, yes, that was I was asking. Sorry if it was unclear. I am guessing that the letters indicate Ab, Weld, Menfes'qiduse, but I want to make sure and it would be interesting to know which Person in which. If I was making this icon, for example, it would be understanding that the Father would be in the middle (taking from the Irenaeus' statement that the Son and Spirit are the "hands" of the Father). But I would be interested to know if this is how this icon is understood as well.

As this is the only Ethiopian trinity I have seen which includes the tags, I'm not sure if the idea that certain figures indicate certain Persons is an innovation. There is obviously a tendency to view this icon as the figures of the Persons being interchangeable.

Sarah

The figures are in Ge'ez or Ancient Ethiopic.

There are six figures which must be read from left to right. The top three then the bottom three.

The top three says Se, Lew, Seh, Or the the word: 'Seluse' which means in Ge'ez 'Trinity'

The bottom three are hard for me I can make out the first 'Tih' and the last figure 'Seh'. The middle is unclear. It does not look like Ge'ez. maybe it was damaged or poorly duplicated and certain aspects of the shape is lost. I think it may be a 'Ha' sound but it has a "kick" to the left that none of the other "Ha" sounds have. It could be a special sound used only in the monastaries. Anyway The second word is not clear to me. Maybe 'Tihase'?. If this is a good guess I do not know the words meaning. I can guess that it means: 'Pitty'. I guessed 'Pitty' since we say it all the time in the Ge'ez Liturgy: "Oh Holy Trinity pitty us O Holy Trinity spare us, Oh Holy Trinity have mercy upon us". In Ge'ez this would be: O Seluse Qiduse mahereneh, Selue Qiduse mahakeneh, O Seluse Qiduse Tih'ase'haleneh (Pitty us).

I feel it is good guess.

So: both lines should read: "Seluse Tih'aseh" = Pitty of the Trinity (literally) or simply: "The mercy of the Trinity"

Even for Ethiopians Ge'ez is not easy. So the figures must be made very clearly.

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

There are six figures which must be read from left to right. The top three then the bottom three.

The top three says Se, Lew, Seh, Or the the word: 'Seluse' which means in Ge'ez 'Trinity'

The bottom three are hard for me I can make out the first 'Tih' and the last figure 'Seh'. The middle is unclear. It does not look like Ge'ez. maybe it was damaged or poorly duplicated and certain aspects of the shape is lost. I think it may be a 'Ha' sound but it has a "kick" to the left that none of the other "Ha" sounds have. It could be a special sound used only in the monastaries. Anyway The second word is not clear to me. Maybe 'Tihase'?. If this is a good guess I do not know the words meaning. I can guess that it means: 'Pitty'. I guessed 'Pitty' since we say it all the time in the Ge'ez Liturgy: "Oh Holy Trinity pitty us O Holy Trinity spare us, Oh Holy Trinity have mercy upon us". In Ge'ez this would be: O Seluse Qiduse mahereneh, Selue Qiduse mahakeneh, O Seluse Qiduse Tih'ase'haleneh (Pitty us).

I feel it is good guess.

So: both lines should read: "Seluse Tih'aseh" = Pitty of the Trinity (literally) or simply: "The mercy of the Trinity"

Even for Ethiopians Ge'ez is not easy. So the figures must be made very clearly.

That is my best.

Hope this helped!

Thank you very much. That is very helpful. I see my guess that the letters are identification tags was completely wrong, that's good to know! Just shows the dangers of trying to understand a certain type of iconography by means of another type - they may have nothing to do with each other.

Since these aren't identification tags, may I ask whether it is correct to assume that in this icon it is understood that the figures are interchangeable? I.e. the person in the center may be validly seen as either the Father or the Son or the Spirit?

Thank you very much. That is very helpful. I see my guess that the letters are identification tags was completely wrong, that's good to know! Just shows the dangers of trying to understand a certain type of iconography by means of another type - they may have nothing to do with each other.

Since these aren't identification tags, may I ask whether it is correct to assume that in this icon it is understood that the figures are interchangeable? I.e. the person in the center may be validly seen as either the Father or the Son or the Spirit?

The letters on the first row read "SELUS", meaning Three or Trinity;The letters on the second row read "QIDUS" meaning Holy;Together they read "Holy Trinity"

Hiywot.

Hiywot: Indiet'nachoew?

Thanks for your response.

It is interesting since you seem to be correct with "QIDUS" if we consider the fact that the "qi" sound is not written in correct feedel. It is written with the "arms" out as in "ha" and not with the arms positioned so that it looks as if we are drawing a person doing 'esqusta' (hands at the waiste) which is the "qi" sound. Also the "du" sound is not right either it is written with the "head" open. I thought this was a bad copy and as such maybe the "head" was only open due to a bad copy.

You looked at it with more mercy that errors in the feedel were apparent. I looked at it trusting that the Iconographer was right.

In your reply #7, you have correctly said that 'it may be damaged or poorly duplicated'. Otherwise the iconographer made no mistake. FYI the iconographer is the late Aleqa Mezmur Zedawit who was one of the famous writers of icons of church walls in Ethiopia. Whenever the icon of the Trinity is written the captions we see are either "Silus Kidus" or "Aga'izte-alem Silasse".

I might be wrong, but the two entities over the figures might indicate that the Person on the right is the Holy Spirit (there's a dove over it!) and the one on the left might be the Son (also named in Isaiah "the Angel of the Great Council" as president among the angels). I don't speek ge'ez, though. Hope this could help.

Peace be with you,

I believe the figure is not a dove but rather one of the four living creatures- specifically, the one with the face of the eagle.

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

In your reply #7, you have correctly said that 'it may be damaged or poorly duplicated'. Otherwise the iconographer made no mistake. FYI the iconographer is the late Aleqa Mezmur Zedawit who was one of the famous writers of icons of church walls in Ethiopia. Whenever the icon of the Trinity is written the captions we see are either "Silus Kidus" or "Aga'izte-alem Silasse".

Regards,

Hiywot.

Thanks.

How did you come up with "DAT"?

Is that to refer to me?

I assumed you are referring to me because you used the Amharic after DAT.

I am referred to as Amdetsion or Dcn Amdetsion on this Forum. I allow "Fr.Deacon Amdetsion" from my EO brothers since this is their traditon of respect for 'full' Deacons. I have never instigated or promoted its use. When I did use it myself in response to EO posters a few times I had a huge complaint from certain OO posters. One in particular from the Ethiopian Church. So I stopped my own use of the phrase but allow EO's to use it if they wish.

Thus if it is OK with you please refrain from "DAT" in the future if you intend this to mean me. Not for anything but I do not want my forum idenity to be further confused. I am a Diaqone. You may use Amdetsion or Dcn Amdetsion. I appreciate it!

In America their is at lease two other Dcn Amdetsions that I am aware of. One spells his name Amde Tsion. 'Two words' which is proper. Their is also a Kes Amde Tsion.

Again, I am sorry for such a delayed response to this post. I'm typically tardy most of the times! Did you figure out that under 'S' 'Lu' 'Se', it reads, 'Q' 'Du' 'S(e)': literally, 'Trinity Holy'.

Xiara, usually in the Holy Trinity icons that are written by Ehiopian iconographers, one can see that the beards on the three Persons are long [the Father], longer [the Son] and longest [the Paraklete]. Of course, this represents not age, but the 'functions' of the Persons. The Father is the Begetter and causes Procession, but is not begotten nor does He proceed. The Son is the only-Begotten, but does not cause procession nor does He beget or proceed. The Paraklete is not Begotten, does not beget, does not cause procession, but Proceeds only. This 'style' is fashioned to express the Persons as individuals, although they are one in Essence.

They are sitting on the 'meseret' of Menbere Mengist, which is just an icon of the Lord's Kingdom. It is not a literal 'glass throne' that sits on the 'sea' as most people think, due to the misinterpretation of St. John's words. Hence, the Cherubim [and the teaching of some traditional Ethiopian scholars who say that there are Seven Heavens] who bare that so-called 'transparent' throne and dwell in se'ma'y we'du'd [the Kingdom of God that rests on the back of the Cherubim].

I hope that this helps. Take care and peace to you...

Haile Amanuel

Logged

'He who is greatest among you, will be your servant [St. Matthew 23:11].'

Xiara, usually in the Holy Trinity icons that are written by Ehiopian iconographers, one can see that the beards on the three Persons are long [the Father], longer [the Son] and longest [the Paraklete]. Of course, this represents not age, but the 'functions' of the Persons. The Father is the Begetter and causes Procession, but is not begotten nor does He proceed. The Son is the only-Begotten, but does not cause procession nor does He beget or proceed. The Paraklete is not Begotten, does not beget, does not cause procession, but Proceeds only. This 'style' is fashioned to express the Persons as individuals, although they are one in Essence.

Frankly speaking, on all Ethiopian icons of the Holy Trinity which I have seen, there was no difference in the length of the beards (or at least it was not visible to my eyes). The EO way of presenting the Holy Trinity is based on the scene of the hospitality of Abraham. The RC way - on images from the Book of Daniel (the Father as an old man) and the Gospels (the Son as a young man and the Spirit as a dove). What is the Ethiopian Orthodox way based on and what does it signify? It looks like the old man from the Western tradition, but tripled - why?

Occasionally you will find in Eastern Orthodox churches icons of the Trinity with the father as an old man and the holy spirit as a dove. These images however are deemed improper by the Church as a whole.

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

Occasionally you will find in Eastern Orthodox churches icons of the Trinity with the father as an old man and the holy spirit as a dove. These images however are deemed improper by the Church as a whole.

If you click on the Ancient of Days tag, below, you'll find some past threads on the icon you just described.

Occasionally you will find in Eastern Orthodox churches icons of the Trinity with the father as an old man and the holy spirit as a dove. These images however are deemed improper by the Church as a whole.

Depends on who you are talking to. I think St. John of Damascus would agree with you, and I think his opinion in worth a lot on this matter.

Occasionally you will find in Eastern Orthodox churches icons of the Trinity with the father as an old man and the holy spirit as a dove.

Right, e.g. my own church. But generally speaking, it can be said that three angels are EO and an old man, a young man and a dove are RC. Now, what about Ethiopian Orthodoxy - why three old man? Anyone?

Occasionally you will find in Eastern Orthodox churches icons of the Trinity with the father as an old man and the holy spirit as a dove.

Right, e.g. my own church. But generally speaking, it can be said that three angels are EO and an old man, a young man and a dove are RC. Now, what about Ethiopian Orthodoxy - why three old man? Anyone?

Occasionally you will find in Eastern Orthodox churches icons of the Trinity with the father as an old man and the holy spirit as a dove.

Right, e.g. my own church. But generally speaking, it can be said that three angels are EO and an old man, a young man and a dove are RC. Now, what about Ethiopian Orthodoxy - why three old man? Anyone?

Hey, there are Slavs and Slavs. They're no more homogeneous than Greeks or Celts or any other group which claims "ethnic purity". Bunkum. We're all mongrels in this world, and the sooner we come to terms with it, the better.

Hey, there are Slavs and Slavs. They're no more homogeneous than Greeks or Celts or any other group which claims "ethnic purity". Bunkum. We're all mongrels in this world, and the sooner we come to terms with it, the better.

Someone gave me a copy of Fr. Stanley Harakas' The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers. In it, he advises against interracial marriage on the basis that God created the "races"!

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

Except that in Orthodoxy there very clearly are Greeks, and they have supplanted the Jews as the New Israel. Didn't you know that the New Testament is written in Greek, and that since the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the Hebrew version is obsolete? God has turned the righteous Jews into Greeks, and those that remain on the other side are Christ-killing dogs.

In Christ, there is no longer Jew nor Greek, only Greek. Outside of Christ there are Jews and barbarians. Jesus Christ: born a Jew, died a Greek. Didn't you know he established the Greek Orthodox Church in 33 AD?

Except that in Orthodoxy there very clearly are Greeks, and they have supplanted the Jews as the New Israel. Didn't you know that the New Testament is written in Greek, and that since the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the Hebrew version is obsolete? God has turned the righteous Jews into Greeks, and those that remain on the other side are Christ-killing dogs.

In Christ, there is no longer Jew nor Greek, only Greek. Outside of Christ there are Jews and barbarians. Jesus Christ: born a Jew, died a Greek. Didn't you know he established the Greek Orthodox Church in 33 AD?

Just because the canons are in place doesn't mean everyone will obey them. You will find such images in many Orthodox churches but that doesn't meant they're legitimate.

It's really pretty simple- the Father never appeared in the flesh, so we have no business portraying him as a man.

True, but I can understand if it's merely symbolic. The icon is not saying the Father appeared as flesh. It is depicting a "Father" with greatness, almost like the face of a Pantocrator. Christ never appeared as a lamb and Revelations paints such a picture.

However, at the same time, I'm not 100% sure, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. Some church fathers believed that the three men appearing before Abraham was the Trinity.

The MP of all people should know the canons if you really think they're binding. But if the MP has it, I don't see how you saying they're uncanonical is legitimate.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

The MP of all people should know the canons if you really think they're binding. But if the MP has it, I don't see how you saying they're uncanonical is legitimate.

The original Cathedral of Christ the Savior was built during the 1820s-1850s, a period where, since the 17thC, traditional canonical iconography had all but disappeared all over the Orthodox world, not just in Russia, having been overtaken by naturalistic, Renaissance-type religious art. With the pervasiveness of this art came a loss of sense, by clergy and laity alike, of the deficiency of theological, liturgical and doctrinal integrity of the paintings which became known as icons. Therefore, it is not surprising that images of God the Father and other uncanonical images were commonplace. Just because they're there don't make them right.

It is not only a matter of "artistic style" (abstracted versus naturalistic) which gives an icon its authenticity, but also its content. This is particularly evident when comparing western paintings and canonical icons of church feasts. Quite striking in their difference are those for the Resurrection, and the Nativity of the Lord, and, to a lesser extent, the Annunciation.

The MP of all people should know the canons if you really think they're binding. But if the MP has it, I don't see how you saying they're uncanonical is legitimate.

It would be a pretty big understatement to say that patriarchs make mistakes sometimes.

This isn't exactly a matter of dispute- the council of 1666 very explicitly ruled against this kind of "Icon of the Trinity." There are also patristic witnesses against a depiction of the Father. As for such depictions being "symbolic"- such an understanding would undermine the incarnational theology that supports icons, namely, that God became man and therefore becomes visible and depictable. Icons therefore are not "symbolic" in this way, insofar as they are depictions of God as he actually appeared, or as he is actually reflected in his Saints.

The three men appearing to Abraham are considered to be a representation of the Trinity, but not actual incarnations of the Persons. That's why St. Andrei Rublev's Trinity icon are acceptable.

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

St John of Damascus, who is rightly regarded, along with St Theodore of the Studion, as being foremost in influence in the defense not only of iconography's existence, but in what should and should not be portrayed in icons, railed at length about the folly of depicting God the Father as an old man in icons, over 800 years before the Great Council of Moscow in 1666. And this council is not the only one which has ruled against symbolic images of the Father and the Holy Spirit, as well as prefigurations or allegories of the Word; councils held in various parts of the Orthodox world as late as into the 20th century ruled, yet again, that such images were contrary to the doctrines of Orthodoxy. Plus ça change ....

The MP of all people should know the canons if you really think they're binding. But if the MP has it, I don't see how you saying they're uncanonical is legitimate.

It would be a pretty big understatement to say that patriarchs make mistakes sometimes.

This isn't exactly a matter of dispute- the council of 1666 very explicitly ruled against this kind of "Icon of the Trinity." There are also patristic witnesses against a depiction of the Father. As for such depictions being "symbolic"- such an understanding would undermine the incarnational theology that supports icons, namely, that God became man and therefore becomes visible and depictable. Icons therefore are not "symbolic" in this way, insofar as they are depictions of God as he actually appeared, or as he is actually reflected in his Saints.

The three men appearing to Abraham are considered to be a representation of the Trinity, but not actual incarnations of the Persons. That's why St. Andrei Rublev's Trinity icon are acceptable.

In 1666, they condemned the use of the Father depicted like an old man, but Andrei Rublev's depiction of the Father as an angel is okay? I don't think people who paint the Father as an old man are saying the Father was incarnate as an old man, just as people who depict the Father as angel are not saying that the Father was incarnate as an angel.

Perhaps, in 1666, people believed the Father to be an old man. Maybe that's why they condemned it. I would condemn even Andrei Rublev's icon if I find people believing that the Trinity are really three angels. But when there's a few smart people who understand the allegory or the Scriptural reference, and not the literal understanding, I don't see the issue.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 08:58:34 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

The MP of all people should know the canons if you really think they're binding. But if the MP has it, I don't see how you saying they're uncanonical is legitimate.

It would be a pretty big understatement to say that patriarchs make mistakes sometimes.

This isn't exactly a matter of dispute- the council of 1666 very explicitly ruled against this kind of "Icon of the Trinity." There are also patristic witnesses against a depiction of the Father. As for such depictions being "symbolic"- such an understanding would undermine the incarnational theology that supports icons, namely, that God became man and therefore becomes visible and depictable. Icons therefore are not "symbolic" in this way, insofar as they are depictions of God as he actually appeared, or as he is actually reflected in his Saints.

The three men appearing to Abraham are considered to be a representation of the Trinity, but not actual incarnations of the Persons. That's why St. Andrei Rublev's Trinity icon are acceptable.

In 1666, they condemned the use of the Father depicted like an old man, but Andrei Rublev's depiction of the Father as an angel is okay? I don't think people who paint the Father as an old man are saying the Father was incarnate as an old man, just as people who depict the Father as angel are not saying that the Father was incarnate as an angel.

Perhaps, in 1666, people believed the Father to be an old man. Maybe that's why they condemned it. I would condemn even Andrei Rublev's icon if I find people believing that the Trinity are really three angels. But when there's a few smart people who understand the allegory or the Scriptural reference, and not the literal understanding, I don't see the issue.

Mina, does your church recognise the authority of the Quinisext and Seventh Ecumenical Councils?

The MP of all people should know the canons if you really think they're binding. But if the MP has it, I don't see how you saying they're uncanonical is legitimate.

It would be a pretty big understatement to say that patriarchs make mistakes sometimes.

This isn't exactly a matter of dispute- the council of 1666 very explicitly ruled against this kind of "Icon of the Trinity." There are also patristic witnesses against a depiction of the Father. As for such depictions being "symbolic"- such an understanding would undermine the incarnational theology that supports icons, namely, that God became man and therefore becomes visible and depictable. Icons therefore are not "symbolic" in this way, insofar as they are depictions of God as he actually appeared, or as he is actually reflected in his Saints.

The three men appearing to Abraham are considered to be a representation of the Trinity, but not actual incarnations of the Persons. That's why St. Andrei Rublev's Trinity icon are acceptable.

In 1666, they condemned the use of the Father depicted like an old man, but Andrei Rublev's depiction of the Father as an angel is okay? I don't think people who paint the Father as an old man are saying the Father was incarnate as an old man, just as people who depict the Father as angel are not saying that the Father was incarnate as an angel.

Perhaps, in 1666, people believed the Father to be an old man. Maybe that's why they condemned it. I would condemn even Andrei Rublev's icon if I find people believing that the Trinity are really three angels. But when there's a few smart people who understand the allegory or the Scriptural reference, and not the literal understanding, I don't see the issue.

Mina, does your church recognise the authority of the Quinisext and Seventh Ecumenical Councils?

That has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm just trying to understand the logic behind the rejection of an icon in your church.

But to answer your question, of course not. We only recognize the first three ecumenical councils. You should know this. At the same time, my church does venerate icons and would consider iconoclasm a heresy as well.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

In 1666, they condemned the use of the Father depicted like an old man, but Andrei Rublev's depiction of the Father as an angel is okay?

The Hospitality of Abraham icon is based on an actual biblical event, where "three men" appeared to Abraham. Whence comes the image of God the Father as an old man? If anywhere, it's a misinterpretation of the Prophet Daniel's Ancient of Days.

The three men in Genesis are in fact angels, who represented the Trinity but were not actually the Trinity. Therefore, it's nonsense to say that God the Father is depicted as an angel here.

Quote

But when there's a few smart people who understand the allegory or the Scriptural reference, and not the literal understanding, I don't see the issue.

Once again, the Orthodox understanding of iconography, as expounded by the 7th Ecumenical Council and Fathers such as John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite, is founded on the incarnation. The incarnation is not an allegory, and while it is not wrong to depict allegories in general, it is wrong to depict the God who cannot be depicted. Nowhere in the Scriptures does God the Father appear as an old man. He has never appeared to us in a circumscribable form.

As an aside, the grammar Nazi in me must protest against the use of "there's" to mean "there are". This is a common error nowadays which is quite irksome.

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

I don't see how we EO can invoke the 7th Ecumenical Council in this case on a Church that recognizes only the first three as universally authoritative. There were many, many years between the 3rd and the 7th, and the different OO iconographical traditions took on a life of their own, separate from ours, that I don't think the EO aren't in a position to speak to (unless they share the tradition, but I can't think of a case like that; the Copts seem more Arabic than the Greek Alexandrian Patriarchate).

A question though: was the reasoning of the 7th Ecumenical Council invoked by the actual council that condemned the icons of God the Father? Is the entire Church suppose to subject themselves to this council (rather than just some of the laity agreeing with the reasoning)?

Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul

In 1666, they condemned the use of the Father depicted like an old man, but Andrei Rublev's depiction of the Father as an angel is okay?

The Hospitality of Abraham icon is based on an actual biblical event, where "three men" appeared to Abraham. Whence comes the image of God the Father as an old man? If anywhere, it's a misinterpretation of the Prophet Daniel's Ancient of Days.

The three men in Genesis are in fact angels, who represented the Trinity but were not actually the Trinity. Therefore, it's nonsense to say that God the Father is depicted as an angel here.

I only understand two interpretations of the story of Abraham's hospitality. One interpretation was the Logos accompanied by two angels. The other interpretation was the three persons of the Trinity itself. Both of which I'm sure the Church fathers figured it was some sort of docetic form, and not real tangible flesh of those who appeared before Abraham. Either case, I don't think the church fathers mentioned them as three angels who came to send a message to Abraham, and that the three angels represented the Trinity. They were energies of the very Trinity appearing to Abraham. This was my understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If I'm right though, then you can't say these are three angels that represent the Trinity for tradition's sake.

Quote

Quote

But when there's a few smart people who understand the allegory or the Scriptural reference, and not the literal understanding, I don't see the issue.

Once again, the Orthodox understanding of iconography, as expounded by the 7th Ecumenical Council and Fathers such as John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite, is founded on the incarnation. The incarnation is not an allegory, and while it is not wrong to depict allegories in general, it is wrong to depict the God who cannot be depicted. Nowhere in the Scriptures does God the Father appear as an old man. He has never appeared to us in a circumscribable form.

As an aside, the grammar Nazi in me must protest against the use of "there's" to mean "there are". This is a common error nowadays which is quite irksome.

I haven't read John of Damascus or Theodore the Studite, but from what I understand from the Quintisext and Nicean Councils, they didn't really specify on condemnation of certain types of icons, but stressed icons to be venerated (and perhaps a more Christocentric iconography, but that doesn't mean they condemned other types). Indeed, the only council clear enough that does condemn the use of old-man Father is the 1666 Council of Moscow, which makes me wonder how authoritative this council is if even the MP doesn't follow it.

Forgive me for the grammar mistakes. My sister would also not be very happy with them either. I think I should start calling her the grammar Nazi.

God bless.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

St. Justin Martyr:“Moses, therefore, that blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that the one who was seen by Abraham at the oak of Mamre was God, accompanied by two angels, who were sent, for the condemnation of Sodom, by another, namely by the One who always remains above the heavens, who has never been seen by any human being, and who of himself holds converse with none, whom we term the Creator of all things, and the Father”. [Dial. 56]

Severian of Gabbala“Christ appeared to you, O excellent one, escorted by two angels, and by your hospitality you became a companion of God and of angels… Christ appeared to you in the appearance of a man, revealing to you the mysteries of his divine and saving sojourn on earth… Therefore you recognised God's mediator, the Son who was to be known between two living beings or animals”. [PG 56:546]

Origen“Notice first that with the two angels the Lord was present to Abraham, but it was only the two Angels who came to Lot” [PG 12:184]

Whether the “ancient of days” is God the Father or the Son, it doesn’t make any difference when it comes to the Icon of the Holy Trinity in question, because it has depicted them all as ancient of days. What One of Them is, in this case, Three of Them are!!! Mystery of the Holy Trinity.

Yet, there are patristic writings that make clear that the “Ancient of days” is specifically God the Father. Aba Giorgis of Gasicha writes: “…Daniel said… and the Son of man came to the Ancient of days and was given Him kingdom and an everlasting dominion. … He said the Son of man came to the Ancient of days (Whose age is infinite) indicating the second coming of God the Son and sitting at the right hand side of His Father to judge. …” [In: Book of mystery; Amharic version, Book ONE, Ch. 11]. I have also read that St. Cyril of Alexandria have given the meaning of “he came unto the ancient of days” of Daniel 7 as the Son ascending to the throne of His eternal Father and given honor and worship.

It is true that no man has seen God as He is in His Essence. Icons, therefore, can not depict Him as He is in His Essence. But I believe that the visions and similitudes of the prophets were instances of His condescension that can be depicted in Icons. Therefore, we depict God the Father in our ancient and modern Icons of Theophany, Epiphany, and Trinity.

Hi...forgive the resurrected thread...I just have a question for my Ethiopian friends. Do you happen to know what the earliest iconographic depiction of the Trinity is, and how old?

Mina, very interesting question, I at the moment have no answer for, but I will be digging, if you get an answer please let me know.

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

Hi...forgive the resurrected thread...I just have a question for my Ethiopian friends. Do you happen to know what the earliest iconographic depiction of the Trinity is, and how old?

Mina, very interesting question, I at the moment have no answer for, but I will be digging, if you get an answer please let me know.

Thank you!

Perhaps, also, another question would be if there's also evidence of very ancient iconography in Ethiopia as well. It seems to me when I search for Ethiopian icons, I only get late medieval icons to the present.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.